Use of markers in the diagnosis and treatment of lupus
a technology of lupus and markers, applied in the field of lupus diagnosis and treatment, can solve the problems of end-organ failure, multi-organ system damage, recognition and early treatment to prevent tissue and organ damage, and clinically challenging problems
- Summary
- Abstract
- Description
- Claims
- Application Information
AI Technical Summary
Benefits of technology
Problems solved by technology
Method used
Image
Examples
example 1
Identification of Lupus Markers
[0510]Markers for Lupus were identified by methods described above. Table 1 provides a list of biomarkers identified in both serum and urine samples for Lupus. Expression levels of individual markers identified in Table 1 were analyzed in patients with Lupus and negative controls. FIGS. 7 and 8 are box plots depicting a direct comparison of normalized expression levels of individual markers identified between patients with Lupus and negative controls, i.e., patients without Lupus.
[0511]As shown in FIGS. 7 and 8, expression levels of AMP and S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine were increased in patients with Lupus when compared to negative controls. ROC curves were generated for these markers as well. As shown in FIG. 9 and Table 2, the combination of the two serum markers AMP and S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine has a predictive diagnostic value of 0.836 for patients with Lupus.
[0512]These data indicate that the markers identified in Tables 1 and 2 can be used as bioma...
example 2
Identification of Renal Disease Markers
[0513]Markers for renal disease were identified by methods described above. Tables 3 and 4 provide a list of biomarkers identified in serum and urine samples, respectively, from patients with renal disease.
[0514]Expression levels of individual markers identified in Tables 3 and 4 were analyzed in patients with renal disease and negative controls. ROC curves were generated for these markers as well. As shown in FIG. 10, a combination of two serum markers (glutarylcarnitine and N-acetyl-glutamine) has a predictive diagnositic value of 0.848 for patients with renal disease Similarly, a combination two urine markers (pentacosanoylglycine and ciliary neurotrophic factor receptor subunit alpha) has a predictive diagnostic value of 0.844 for patients with renal disease (FIG. 11).
[0515]These data indicate that the markers identified in Tables 3 and 4 can be used as biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of renal disease, and to improve the accuracy...
example 3
Identification of Scleroderma Markers
[0516]Markers distinguishing scleroderma and Lupus were identified by methods described above. Tables 5 and 6 provide a list of biomarkers identified in serum and urine samples, respectively, from patients with scleroderma and patients with Lupus.
[0517]Expression levels of individual markers identified in Tables 5 and 6 were analyzed in patients with scleroderma and patients with Lupus. ROC curves were also generated for these markers. As shown in FIG. 12, a combination of five serum markers (2-furoylglycine, 3-methylphenylacetic acid, AMP, complement factor D, and ficolin-2) has a predictive diagnositic value of 0.831 for patients with scleroderma versus patients with Lupus. A combination of three urine markers (1,2-diacetyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphate, coumaric acid, phe-pro) has a predictive diagnostic value of 0.771 for patients with scleroderma verus patients with Lupus (FIG. 13).
[0518]In addition, two additional serum markers were identified to ...
PUM
| Property | Measurement | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Composition | aaaaa | aaaaa |
| Level | aaaaa | aaaaa |
| Threshold limit | aaaaa | aaaaa |
Abstract
Description
Claims
Application Information
Login to View More 


